Tuesday, 30 August 2011

"Feminism is the main prop of the consumer society and the welfare state, that is so toxic to the institutions of marriage and family as well as the practice of rational government based on rational moral principles. The alarming and precipitate decline of Western civilisation demonstrates what feminism can do to your civilisation if you let women have too much power."

"Feminism is one of the drivers of the consumer society. It is after all women who love to shop."

I am already known for being the victim of a BNP single mum with disabled children who got the Chairman to expel me from the party by kicking up a fuss when I pointed out to her that eugenics had always been discreetly practised before the welfare state and asked her why it was not her fault when she became a single mum after she was impregnated by a violent criminal who was not her husband. I am also known for challenging the likes of Ed West (whom I believe may have sired illegitimate children and is refusing to marry their mother), Norman Wells of Family Youth Concern who persist in calling a spade a spatula and who tells me that his organisation is not in the business of bashing single mums. (If it is not in the business of bashing single mums and feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves, then what the hell is his organisation for? He could not answer, nor would he tell me what he thought was the preventing his organisation from being more successful because he would have had to use the dreaded F word - FEMINISM.)

Most important and egregious of all are those in the Tory Party such as Theresa Twat May and Cunt Cameron who have betrayed the principles of Conservatism and encouraged, as long ago as 2002, slut single mothers to breed at taxpayers' expense.

My sacrifice is already known. I refuse to cower before the worst of women and the worst of people. So all I have to do now is challenge them into having a public debate. Patience and persistence, not disorderly retreat and unprincipled apologies to the stupid, promiscuous, irresponsible and arrogant, who do not deserve it.

If I can count on the support of this rare group of people called right-thinking members of society - even if it is a grudging "I agree with her views though not with her choice of words"- then things can be taken further.

But I already know that scummy, emasculated, cowardly and hypocritical educated white middle class men will be too fearful of incurring the wrath of the feminazis. In this matter only the Muslims dare challenge feminism while the Jews, Christians and even the BNP cower before the slut single mum who multiply like cancer cells and turn their civilisation into the degraded degenerate demented stinking mess that it is Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland. (Yes, feminism causes paedophilia too.)

Not even the BNP - can you believe that? Not even an ORTHODOX Rabbi will say anything against slut single mums encouraged by successive governments to breed at the expense of the taxpayer.

The Jews behave like cunning manipulative women who prevaricate and don't show their hand on account of their being a despised and persecuted minority while Christianity is the religion of slaves and women, and we cannot expect much from those with the mentality of slaves and whose heads are stuffed with feminine preoccupations and sensibilities, can we?

I can therefore only count on the Muslims now to support me in this, it would appear. The Koran after all commands them to man up and enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, but will they be too Westernised and Anglilcised and therefore too feeble-minded and feeble-spirited by now to do even this?

We can only wait and pray and see. It was after all the Muslim community - the ones who had all the shops to loot - who suffered the most. Whites are now as scummy mummily single-parented as blacks, these days, and that was really the point that David Starkey was trying to make. Three of their brave young men got mown down by CHAV bastard scum the spawn of slut single mums. Will they at least challenge feminism? After all, they now live here and ought to care what happens to this society, if only out of self-interest.

Over to you, Muslim Council of Britain and Association of British Muslims.

Ed West's egregiously confused blog post is probably testament to the fact that he is so afraid of the feminazis getting him that he has confused the matriarchy with polygamy in his nervousness. To be polygamous, one has to take be able to legally take more than one wife, not impregnate more than one woman. That should ahve been quite obvious to an educated man like him, but, strangely and sadly, Ed West affects not to notice this or really cannot understand the difference himself. Possibly, Telegraph readers these days are now to feminised and dumbed-down themselves to notice any errors of reasoning.

In a matriarchy, it pays women to be promiscuous. In a matriarchy, extra-marital sex is condoned and even rewarding for the woman. The man who has sex with a woman to whom he is not marred is deemed to want to pay for any bastard he sires even if it is quite clear that he wished no such thing. A man who has sex with a woman not his wife who indicates that she is prepared to have no-strings sex with him simply wants to have sex, not make a baby with her and pay for it until it is 16 or until it has finished full-time education.

A woman who has sex with a man thinking he wants to pay for any offspring sired as a result of that union is arguably an imbecile, and imbeciles should be spayed for the greater good so that the national gene pool is not contaminated by imbecility, one would have thought.

But liberals are hardly known for the rationality of their thinking processes these days. Most of the time cannot even explain their bizarre behaviour to themselves, much less to their critics and challengers. Indeed, it is all they can do to repeat their mindless mantra of indiscriminate compassion and endless tolerance of everything that is harmful to society.

It is therefore no surprise that the women who go forth and multiply and bring forth illegitimate offspring - the bastard spawn of stupid sluts (a pleonasm like tuna fish) - turn out to be depraved, degraded and criminal who enjoy a spot of looting, arson, assault and murder whenever the opportunity allows.

Strangely and sadly, Norman Wells of the charity Family Education Trust http://www.famyouth.org.uk/ that was set up for the purpose of promoting family values supported by marriage declared to me on 16 August 2011 that his organisation does not exist to "bash single mums". What on earth is it for then, when so many commentators like Ed West are so deeply fearful of offending the slut single mum who spawns bastards at taxpayers' expense?

It is possible that Ed West fears to denounce them because he has not married the mother of his illegitimate children because he sees no need to do so, rather like Ed Miliband, never found the time and inclination to do so until he became leader of the Labour Party.

Ed West may fear his 'common law wife' or a feminazi superior at the Telegraph, but what excuse has Norman Wells got for not doing his job properly? What excuse has he got for fearing the slut single mum who is encouraged to breed by successive governments at taxpayers' expense? There are after all plenty of organisations that say they promote family values supported by marriage, but dare not go the whole hog of condemning feminism and Never Married Single Mothers ("NMSMs"). They skirt around the issues and beat about the bush, talking in their mealy-mouthed way about 'absent fathers' and such abstract ideas as 'parenting', 'discipline' that are beyond the wit of dumbed-down inhabitants of Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland to grasp unless demonstrated in parenting classes at the further expense of the taxpayer, content they have written the requisite number of words even if none of them criticise the slut single mum who breeds bastards at taxpayers' expense.

Perhaps the sheer numbers of sluts and bastards in Britain is alone enough to emasculate and feminise men like Norman Wells and Ed West. If so, the prognosis is very bleak indeed. It means that the cancer has spread to all the major organs - the balls and the guts - and has now reached the brain.

The patient is therefore terminal and funerary arrangements ought to be made now, for the stinking rotten body of liberal feminism that will soon be consigned to oblivion and his illegitimate offspring pauperised, disgraced, taken to the orphanage, later to be sexually exploited and enslaved by an uncaring 'carer'.

Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland with its cowardly new race of feral and feminised men, skint, scared and stupid, should therefore prepare themselves for the new New Age in which Tomorrow most certainly does NOT belong to them.

Friday, 12 August 2011

I have a theory that you would probably do better as a comedian than a philosopher because so much of what you say is so excellently funny. I have myself done a bit of stand-up comedy myself in my time, but it is harder to be funny and remember all your lines than just to talk for about an hour about your favourite subject to a captive audience, so I understand.

Having admired you greatly for a few days, I have decided that I would like to interview you during which I shall seriously consider whether or not I will offer myself to you, should you find me sufficiently attractive.

I have this theory that no man resist sex from a woman, provided she is not actually repulsive or obviously diseased.

I would also like you to answer a few questions, before or after sex, as you wish.

These questions will centre around the question of the mislabelling of you as a philosopher of the Left when you are in fact a philosopher of the Right. I regard myself as a philosopher of the Right since I am currently promoting the idea of the one-party state for Britain. This would make me a National Socialist, I believe, or perhaps even a Communist, in the Chinese sense of the term.